It's more a geographic definition of what "Britain" is; EG, the extent of Roman rule on the British Isles in the province of Britannia. Hence, England + Wales and some funky stuff in co. Northumbria where the borders changed a bit since It's also an easy rule-of-thumb because both English and Welsh are likely to accept being called "British" while for Scots it's a fair bit more complicated.
Roman rule was quite complicated because it came in stages. Arguably the furthest north the empire went was the highlands under Agricola. People commonly think that Hadrian's Wall was the frontier (and that's not true, at all) and that also leaves out one and a half English counties. Broadly I agree with you, but it's probably a bit ahistoric.
*sends an email about that to the makers of the TV show Vikings. Opening Scene of the new season...* "Way aye, man. Ahm gunna bat yer round th' 'ead wiv me axe, like, until yer give me mah lil' fishy on mah lil' dishy!"
Hahaha. I'm thinking of words like 'I ken', said in Scotland, meaning 'I know' comes from the Old Norse word 'kenna' meaning to know or to understand. 'Berg' in the Northumbrian accent for a toilet comes from the Old Norse word meaning a hill or cliff face. And 'stottie' is from the Old Norse word stutr. I'm not an expert on languages or anything, but I am interested in it. There'll be more than just that.
Yip! To me British refers to someone who is a citizen of Great Britain, but I wouldn't argue with someone who disagrees with that. There's a lot of anti-English sentiment around which makes that contestable. I wouldn't call myself English.
Nope - that's completely wrong. Most Scots will accept being called British because Scotland is part of the British Isles. The issue around independence is about Scotland not being ruled from England (and that also applies to wales), and people not using English and British interchangeably. Its also completely wrong to assert that Britain is, or ever was, defined by the parameters of roman rule... it is no more true that Britain follows the borders of the province of Britannia than it is that Hungary should follow the borders of the province of Pannonia. Another point of note is that the far extent of roman rule was the antonine wall, built on the orders on Antonius pious in 140AD which runs from the Firth of Forth to the Clyde, albeit that this was only held until around 160AD...
^ This is right. Roman rule in Britain came in stages, and grew and shrank at different times. The province of Britannia when Claudius first invaded was completely different from the province under Hadrian, and Antonius, and Agricola. Rome isn't useful. I get what that poster means, broadly, but it's ahistoric.
Wait—you mean that's a real thing and not just a Genesis song? Edit—my bad, the song is called Firth of Fifth. Interestingly, from an album called Selling England by the Pound.
I'm British and English by birth (half Scots by ancestry), and I'd say that was broadly right, although its more complicated in ulster where the inhabitants are citizens of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland, but some identify very strong as British and other very strongly as not British. There's also the issue of overseas territories ... the residents of both Gibraltar and Falklands are British citizens... but the other 12 overseas territories are not... being rather citizens of the British Dependent Territories... whether these people consider themselves to be british varies from place to place and person to person The Bailiwick of Jersey, The Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Isle of Man are Crown Dependencies not overseas territories... they are not part of the UK, but their citizens can hold British passports (although separate issue ones to standard types), whether they consider themselves British is debatable
It is, it's certainly complicated. There's anti-English sentiment in Scotland that makes 'being British' a bit of a prickly subject - to them 'British' means 'English ruled' or a unionist. I think that abstract nouns are impossible to totally define, especially when they've been molded into a certain thing by common use. Like what is 'Kafkaesque' isn't really like the Kafka I know.
Well, one thing I can definitely say. The British, or the various people who live on the islands commonly known as British I suppose (English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh to be precise), certainly have a way with words. Australians also come up with interesting and colorful names for things. Americans and Canadians were strongly influenced by what I've heard called Plainspeak (coming from the Native Americans, who were very plain-spoken, as well as many being plains-dwellers). Our language is very practical and basic for the most part. In comparison anyway. Oh, we definitely have some strange words and phrases, but they're not as much FUN!
it gets even more complicated when you try to pin down what it means to be Scottish... half my scots relatives are from the Hebrides and will happily tell you that the islands are a separate country and should not be ruled from Edinburgh. Ive also go relatives in shetland whose ancestry is Norse and who claim that shetland and Orkney should be part of Denmark like the Faroes. You can also find the same sort of thing in wales where the north welsh will happily tell you that they are not one nation with the south and should not be ruled from Cardiff, but should instead have a country based on the old celtic kingdom of Gwynedd with its capital at Bangor (but then again there are inhabitants of the north welsh lleyn peninsula who will tell you that they are ethnically irish... descended from Gael invaders who destroyed and conquered the Celtic kingdom of Henis Wyren and should actually there fore be part of Eire) Then you have Cornwal/Kernow which was a separate country from Saxon England until the Norman invasion and has some residents who claim periodically that it should be allowed a devolved administration like that allowed the welsh
Well damn! no wonder my ancestors didn't want to be ruled by yours anymore!! It seems almost nobody wants to be considered British!!
I read once, somewhere, that Welsh people are genetically much more distinct than people in Manchester just 20 miles away because they are part of what's left of the 'British' before the Anglo-Saxons arrived. I have zero idea if that's true, it sounds a little hard to believe. (I can just imagine someone claiming the English aren't British eventually). Culture is playing a very big role in interpretations of things like what 'British' really means. It's a word that's broadly useful, technically it has no meaning I guess.
That's pretty much what I'm getting here. I started this thread hoping for clarity!! Hah!! And then I descended into the maelstrom stage my stage. I suspect it hasn't really even hit bottom yet.
I guess it's like any abstract noun. Not to get political, but terms like Socialism and liberal mean totally different things depending on who you talk to. To one person Socialism is just Communism in sheep's clothing, to another it's an economic philosophy which has had practical results, to someone else it's everything wrong with the world, to another it's a powerful force for good. There might not really be an answer to what you're looking for.
i think that's true - the welsh (along with the cornish and the bretons in france) are what is left of the celtic romano-british... except for those who interbred with the saxons.. The welsh word for England is Loegyr which means 'the lost lands'... as the saxons expanded from the east those celts who didn't want to bend a knee fell back into the western mountains and moors... the same being true for the Bretons except that they were retreating away from the franks (who were a saxon people very similar to the saxons and the angles).
